Investing in Innovation (i3) Application Webinar Scale-up Grants Competition Overview May 2013 Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please.

Investing in Innovation (i3) Application Webinar Scale-up Grants Competition Overview May 2013 Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please refer to the official documents published in the Federal Register.

General Information A Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document is available on the i3 website: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/faq.html.http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/faq.html This document addresses many questions that applicants have asked previously. The Department may update it throughout the competition with questions that applicants submit that are of general applicability. The Department is unable to address applicant-specific questions at any time during the competition. The Department will hold a live webinar session on May 14, 2013 at 2 PM EDT to address applicant questions related to the information presented today. If you have questions prior to that date, please send them to i3@ed.gov.i3@ed.gov

Sections of Webinar Overview of i3 Program Major Changes from 2012 Eligibility Evidence Priorities Selection Criteria & Review Process Pre- & Post-Award Requirements Closing

Overview of the i3 Grant Program Purpose To generate and validate solutions to persistent educational challenges and to support the expansion of effective solutions across the country and to serve substantially larger numbers of students. Funding $135 million (est.) to be obligated by December 31, 2013.

Overview of the i3 Grant Program Eligibility Requirements Applicants Eligible applicants are: (1)Local educational agencies (LEAs) (2)non-profit organizations in partnership with (a) one or more LEAs or (b) a consortium of schools To provide competitive grants to applicants with a record of improving student achievement, attainment or retention in order to expand the implementation of, and investment in, innovative practices that are demonstrated to have an impact on: Improving student achievement or student growth; Closing achievement gaps; Decreasing dropout rates; Increasing high school graduation rates; or Increasing college enrollment and completion rates

What Makes i3 Different? Builds portfolio of different solutions to address key challenges; Aligns amount of funding with level of evidence; Aims explicitly to scale effective programs by creating a pipeline of funding for effective programs; and Provides funding for required independent evaluation in order to build a common understanding of “what works.”

i3 Development Validation Scale-up Types of Awards Available Under i3 *$135M (est.) to be obligated by December 31, 2013

Cautions from First Three Competitions SUBMIT EARLY – The deadline for applications is Tuesday, July 2 nd at 4:30:00pm (Washington, DC time). We will reject applications submitted after the deadline, and some applicants find it takes longer than anticipated to submit in Grants.gov.Grants.gov WRITE CLEARLY – Peer reviewers can only judge your application based on what you tell them, clearly and comprehensively, in your application. UNDERSTAND ELIGIBILITY – We will declare applicants ineligible for funding if they do not meet all of the eligibility requirements. READ THE NOTICES and FAQs, UNDERSTAND THE REQUIREMENTS, AND PLAN AHEAD

Major Changes from 2012 In the i3 Notice of Final Priorities (the 2013 i3 NFP) published on March 27, 2013, the Department redesigned key aspects of the i3 program to increase the program’s impact.i3 Notice of Final Priorities Structure of priorities remains similar but priority language is more focused Includes many of the same broad priority areas (e.g., teacher and principal effectiveness); Maintains flexibility to select different priorities for each grant competition; Creates specific sub-parts to reflect needs in the field; and Strengthens rural priority. Proposed requirements better reflect actual expectations for grantees Strengthens focus on high-need students; Strengthens focus on K-12; and Tightens focus of grantee evaluation on impact.

Major Changes from 2012 (cont’d) Revised evidence standards and definitions so that applicants can better understand what is required to meet each level of evidence Modified the process for applicants to secure, and demonstrate evidence of, the required private-sector match. Applicants must secure a percentage of their Federal grant awards but the timeframe has been expanded. Highest-rated applicants must submit evidence of 50% of the required private-sector match prior to the awarding of an i3 grant. Evidence of the remaining 50% of the required private-sector match must be provided no later than six months after the project start date (i.e., 6 months after January 1, 2014, or by July 1, 2014).

MUST All Eligible Applicants Must Implement Practices, Strategies, or Programs for High-Need Students High-need student means a student at risk of educational failure or otherwise in need of special assistance and support, such as students who are living in poverty, who attend high-minority schools (as defined in the NFP), who are far below grade level, who have left school before receiving a regular high school diploma, who are at risk of not graduating with a diploma on time, who are homeless, who are in foster care, who have been incarcerated, who have disabilities, or who are English learners. Note: To be eligible for an i3 award, an applicant must identify how the proposed project serves high-need student populations. However, while the definition provides examples of high-need students, it does not attempt to define all possible populations. Applicants must identify how their project serves high-need students.

i3 Has Two Types of Eligible Applicants 1)A local educational agency (LEA) and 2)A non-profit organization in partnership with (a) one or more LEAs or (b) a consortium of schools There is no competitive advantage to applying as one type of applicant or the other, but an applicant must meet the relevant eligibility requirements.

Understanding Partnerships and Eligibility If you apply as… An LEA…A partnership… The LEA that is the lead applicant must have a record of improvement (defined on the next slide). There may not be any subgrants. Partners may receive funding through contractual arrangements, or participate in other ways. A non-profit that is part of the partnership must have a record of improvement (defined on the next slide). Any LEA or school in the consortium, or the non- profit with a record of improvement, can be the lead applicant. Sub-granting is allowed, but only to LEAs or schools in the consortium, or to non-profits that have a record of improvement. Partners may receive funding through contractual arrangements, or participate in other ways.

Some Eligibility Requirements Differ Based on Type of Applicant An LEA must: Demonstrate that it: (1) Significantly closed achievement gaps between groups of students; or (2) demonstrated success in significantly increasing academic achievement for all groups of students; and Made significant improvement in other areas; and Establish partnerships with private sector. A partnership must: Demonstrate that the non-profit organization has a record of significantly improving student achievement, attainment, or retention through its record of work with an LEA or schools.

Some Eligibility Requirements Apply to Both Types of Applicants All applicants must: 1.Address one absolute priority. 2.Improve achievement for high-need students. 3.Serve students in grades K-12. 4.Meet the evidence requirement. 5.Secure commitment for required private sector match – for Scale-up grantees– 5% of the federal award.

Notes on Eligibility Requirements Applicants should fully address all eligibility requirements in the application. IMPORTANT: Applicants that do not sufficiently address the eligibility requirements in the application will not be able to supplement their original application with additional information to meet the requirements if they are deemed ineligible.

i3 Evidence Requirements All applications must meet the evidence requirement for the type of grant they are seeking. Applications that do not meet the evidence requirement will not be eligible for a grant award, regardless of scores on the selection criteria. If an application does not meet the “evidence standard” of the grant type under which it was submitted, it will not be considered for a different type of i3 grant. An applicant must either ensure that all evidence is available to the Department from publicly available sources and provide links or other guidance indicating where it is available; or, in the application, include copies of evidence in Appendix D.

i3 Evidence Standards Validation Scale-up Note: Greyed-out cells indicate criteria on which the updated standards are silent. *See What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Procedures and Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently be found at the following link: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19. ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19 Option 1 Option 2 Option 1 Option 2

Scale-up Grant Evidence Requirements To be eligible for an award, an application for a Scale-up grant must be supported by strong evidence of effectiveness. An applicant should identify up to four study citations to be reviewed against WWC Evidence Standards for the purposes of meeting the i3 evidence standard requirement. An applicant should clearly identify these citations in Appendix D, under the “Other Attachments Form,” of its application. The Department will not review a study citation that an applicant fails to clearly identify for review.

i3 2013 Priority Structure The i3 Scale-up Notice Inviting Applications (the NIA) was published in the Federal Register on May 3, 2013. An applicant for a Scale-up grant must choose one of the five absolute priorities to address in their application. Applicants for Scale-up grants, who choose to submit an application under the absolute priority for Serving Rural Communities must identify an additional absolute priority.

i3 Scale-up Priorities Required for all applications Improve Achievement for High-Need Students Must address one absolute priority Teacher or Principal Effectiveness Low-Performing Schools Improving STEM Education College- and Career- Ready Standards Improving Rural Achievement

Absolute Priority 1: Improving the Effectiveness of Teachers or Principals This priority encourages applicants to focus on improving the effectiveness of teachers or principals on any dimension of the teacher or principal career path. The priority also encourages applicants to identify effective methods for recruiting, preparing, supporting, evaluating, or retaining effective teachers or principals, particularly in schools that serve high-need students. Projects addressing pressing needs related to improving teacher or principal effectiveness on any dimension of the teacher or principal career path.

Absolute Priority 2: Improving Low- Performing Schools This priority aims to identify and support multiple approaches to accelerate the performance of severely low-performing schools, as well as their feeder schools, in order to improve outcomes for students. To meet this priority, projects must serve schools among (1) the lowest-performing schools in the State on academic performance measures; (2) schools in the State with the largest within-school performance gaps between student subgroups described in section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA; or (3) secondary schools in the State with the lowest graduation rate over a number of years or the largest within-school gaps in graduation rates between student subgroups described in section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA. Additionally, projects funded under this priority must complement the broader turnaround efforts of the school(s), LEA(s), or State(s) where the projects will be implemented. Ensuring that all students receive a high-quality K-12 education.

Absolute Priority 3: Improving Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education This priority aims to improve science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. Applicants choosing to address this priority will propose projects that ensure that all students have access to and can excel in STEM fields. Ensuring that all students can access and excel in STEM fields.

Absolute Priority 4: Implementing Internationally Benchmarked, College- and Career-Ready Elementary and Secondary Academic Standards Projects that are designed to support the implementation of internationally benchmarked, college- and career-ready academic standards held in common by multiple States and to improve instruction and learning, including strategies that translate the standards into classroom practice. Providing support to projects that will help teachers, principals, and others translate high standards into classroom practices that help high-need students excel.

Absolute Priority 5: Serving Rural Communities Under this priority, we provide funding to projects addressing one of the absolute priorities established for the 2013 Scale-up i3 competition and under which the majority of students to be served are enrolled in rural local educational agencies (as defined in the NIA). Addressing the plethora of challenges that rural communities face as they work to provide a high-quality education for all students.

Notes on Absolute Priority 5: Improving Rural Achievement Please note that applicants that choose to submit an application under the absolute priority for Serving Rural Communities must identify an additional absolute priority. The peer-reviewed scores for applications submitted under the Serving Rural Communities priority will be ranked with other applications under this priority, and not included in the ranking for the additional priority that they identified. This design helps to ensure that applicants under the Serving Rural Communities priority receive an “apples to apples” comparison with other rural applicants.

Competitive and Invitational Priorities Competitive Preference Priorities (CPPs) Improving Cost-Effectiveness and Productivity Enabling Broad Adoption of Effective Practices Supporting Novice i3 Applicants Invitational Priority Supporting High-Quality Early Learning

Competitive and Invitational Priorities CPP1: Improving Cost-Effectiveness and Productivity Under this priority, projects must address one of the following areas: a)Substantially improving student outcomes without commensurately increasing per-student costs. b)Maintaining student outcomes while substantially decreasing per-student costs. c)Substantially improving student outcomes while substantially decreasing per-student costs.

Other requirements related to CPP1 An application addressing this priority must provide-- (1) A clear and coherent budget that identifies expected student outcomes before and after the practice, the cost per student for the practice, and a clear calculation of the cost per student served; (2) A compelling discussion of the expected cost-effectiveness of the practice compared with alternative practices; (3) A clear delineation of one-time costs versus ongoing costs and a plan for sustaining the project, particularly ongoing costs, after the expiration of i3 funding; (4) Identification of specific activities designed to increase substantially the cost- effectiveness of the practice, such as re-designing costly components of the practice (while maintaining efficacy) or testing multiple versions of the practice in order to identify the most cost-effective approach; and (5) A project evaluation that addresses the cost-effectiveness of the proposed practice.

Competitive and Invitational Priorities CPP2: Enabling Broad Adoption of Effective Practices Under this priority, applicants must: a)Identify the practice or practices that the application proposes to prepare for broad adoption, including formalizing the practice (i.e., establish and define key elements of the practice), codifying (i.e., develop a guide or tools to support the dissemination of information on key elements of the practice), and explaining why there is a need for formalization and codification. b)Evaluate different forms of the practice to identify the critical components of the practice that are crucial to its success and sustainability, including the adaptability of critical components to different teaching and learning environments and to diverse learners. c)Provide a coherent and comprehensive plan for developing materials, training, toolkits, or other supports that other entities would need in order to implement the practice effectively and with fidelity. d)Commit to assessing the replicability and adaptability of the practice by supporting the implementation of the practice in a variety of locations during the project period using the materials, training, toolkits, or other supports that were developed for the i3-supported practice.

Competitive and Invitational Priorities CPP 3: Supporting Novice i3 Applicants To expand the reach of the i3 program and encourage entities that have not applied previously for an i3 grant. Novice applicants have never directly received a grant under the i3 program.

Competitive and Invitational Priorities Invitational Priority: Supporting High-Quality Early Learning The Secretary encourages applicants to propose projects that incorporate high-quality early learning components that are aligned with the early learning, elementary and secondary education systems in participating schools and help ensure that all children, especially those from low-income families, enter kindergarten and ready to succeed. Note: Applicants addressing this invitational priority will not receive additional points.

Notes on i3 Selection Criteria and Points The selection criteria are the criteria against which the peer reviewers score each application. The Department selects grantees based on peer reviewer scores, so clearly addressing the selection criteria is critical. Detailed wording for each selection criterion may be found in the Notices at the i3 website: http://www.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html. http://www.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html

Selection Criteria Point Allocation A. Significance B. Quality of the Project Design C. Quality of the Management Plan D. Personnel E. Quality of Project Evaluation Total Points 20 points 10 points 30 points 100 points i3 Selection Criteria and Points

Scale-up Selection Criterion: A. Significance National Need 1)The extent to which the proposed project addresses a national need. 2)The extent of the expected impact of the project on relevant outcomes, including the estimated impact of the project on student outcomes (particularly those related to student achievement) and the breadth of the project’s impact, compared with alternative practices or methods of addressing similar needs. 3)The likelihood that the project will have the estimated impact, including the extent to which the applicant demonstrates that unmet demand for the proposed project or the proposed services will enable the applicant to reach the proposed level of scale. Estimated Impact on Relevant Outcomes Scalability

Notes on Scale-up Selection Criterion: A. Significance Applicants should make sure that a peer reviewer, after reading the application narrative, would understand: How the proposed project will address a national need and address unmet demands. How the proposed project will impact student outcomes in comparison to other practices, and quantify the expected impact of their proposed project if it is successful, and explain why the applicant expects the proposed project to have the described impact.

Scale-up Selection Criterion: B. Quality of the Project Design Addressing Barriers to Scaling Build Capacity to Scale up and Sustain Project 1)The extent to which the applicant will use grant funds to address a particular barrier or barriers that prevented the applicant, in the past, from reaching the level of scale proposed in the application. 2)The extent to which the project would build the capacity of the applicant to scale up and sustain the project or would create an organization capable of expanding if successful outcomes are achieved.

Notes on Scale-up Selection Criterion: B. Quality of the Project Design Applicants should make sure that a peer reviewer, after reading the application narrative, would understand: How the proposed project will overcome previous barriers that prevented the applicant from previously scaling the project, and an explanation of how capacity will be built into the proposed project to further scale and sustain the work.

Scale-up Selection Criterion: C. Quality of the Management Plan Key Responsibilities and Objectives Clarity and Coherence of Plan 1)The extent to which the management plan articulates key responsibilities and well-defined objectives, including the timelines and milestones for completion of major project activities, the metrics that will be used to assess progress on an ongoing basis, and annual performance targets the applicant will use to monitor whether the project is achieving its goals. 2)The clarity and coherence of the applicant’s multi-year financial and operating model and accompanying plan to operate the project at a national level (as defined in the NIA) during the project period. 3)The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that it will have the resources to operate the project at the proposed level of scale during the project period and beyond the length of the grant, including the demonstrated commitment of any partners and evidence of broad support from stakeholders critical to the project’s long-term success (e.g., State educational agencies, teachers’ unions). Operational Resources and Stakeholder Support

Notes on Scale-up Selection Criterion: C. Quality of the Management Plan Applicants should make sure that a peer reviewer, after reading the application narrative, would understand: How the project team will evaluate the success or challenges of the project and use that feedback to make improvements to the project, and explain the organization’s plan that will enable the project to operate at a national level over the life of the grant.

Scale-up Selection Criterion: D. Personnel Qualifications of Project Director and Key Personnel 1)The qualifications and experience of the project director and other key project personnel and the extent to which they have the expertise to accomplish the proposed tasks.

Notes on Scale-up Selection Criterion: D. Personnel Applicants should make sure that a peer reviewer, after reading the application narrative, would understand: How the project team’s prior experiences have prepared them for implementing the proposed project successfully.

Scale-up Selection Criterion: E. Quality of Project Evaluation Clarity of Questions and Appropriateness of Methods 1)The clarity and importance of the key questions to be addressed by the project evaluation, and the appropriateness of the methods for how each question will be addressed. 2)The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce evidence about the project’s effectiveness that would meet the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Evidence Standards without reservations. 3)The extent to which the evaluation will study the project at the proposed level of scale, including, where appropriate, generating information about potential differential effectiveness of the project in diverse settings and for diverse student population groups. Studies Project at Proposed Level of Scale Evidence of Effectiveness

Scale-up Selection Criterion: E. Quality of Project Evaluation Clear and Credible Analysis Plan Clearly Articulates Key Components and Outcomes 4)The extent to which the evaluation plan includes a clear and credible analysis plan, including a proposed sample size and minimum detectable effect size that aligns with the expected project impact, and an analytic approach for addressing the research questions. 5)The extent to which the evaluation plan clearly articulates the key components and outcomes of the project, as well as a measurable threshold for acceptable implementation.

Notes on Scale-up Selection Criterion: E. Quality of Project Evaluation Applicants should make sure that a peer reviewer, after reading the application narrative, would understand: The key evaluation questions and address how the proposed evaluation methodologies will allow the project to answer those questions. These methods for evaluation should include whether the evaluation would meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards. How the project will be evaluated at the proposed scale, including a description of the proposed sample size and project impacts as well as the key components of the proposed project for implementation.

Key Requirements That Must Be Met Before an Award Is Made The Department, before awarding i3 grants, will confirm that all eligibility requirements have been met by potential grantees, including that applicants: Address one absolute priority; Implement practices that serve high-need students; Implement practices that serve students in grades K-12; Be supported by evidence; Demonstrate evidence of prior improvement (different requirements for LEA vs. non-profit (partnership) applicants); and Provide evidence of at least 50% of the private-sector match.

Explanation of Limits on Grant Awards Award Cap No grantee may receive more than two grant awards or more than $23 million in grant awards under this program in FY2013. Additionally, no grantee may receive more than one Scale-up or Validation grant in any two-year period. Award Cap No grantee may receive more than two grant awards or more than $23 million in grant awards under this program in FY2013. Additionally, no grantee may receive more than one Scale-up or Validation grant in any two-year period. Allowable Examples Scale-up ($20M) + Development ($3M) Validation ($12M) + Development ($3M) 2 Development ($3M each) Scale-up in 2012 + Development in 2013 Allowable Examples Scale-up ($20M) + Development ($3M) Validation ($12M) + Development ($3M) 2 Development ($3M each) Scale-up in 2012 + Development in 2013 Unallowable Examples 2 Scale-up or Validation Scale-up + Validation Scale-up in 2012 + Validation in 2013 3 Development ($3M each) Unallowable Examples 2 Scale-up or Validation Scale-up + Validation Scale-up in 2012 + Validation in 2013 3 Development ($3M each) Notes: Applicants with more than 2 highest-rated applications may select which 2 applications receive awards The i3 award cap applies to the applicant; official partners and other partners may participate in more than 2 successful applications 2012 Scale-up or Validation grantees may receive up to 2 Development grants in 2013 Notes: Applicants with more than 2 highest-rated applications may select which 2 applications receive awards The i3 award cap applies to the applicant; official partners and other partners may participate in more than 2 successful applications 2012 Scale-up or Validation grantees may receive up to 2 Development grants in 2013

MUST Post Award Requirements All Grantees Must: Submit evidence of the remaining 50% of the required private-sector match no later than six months after the project start date (January 1, 2014). Conduct an independent project evaluation. Cooperate with technical assistance provided by the Department or its contractors. Share broadly the results of any evaluation. Participate in, organize, or facilitate, as appropriate, communities of practice for the i3 program. Provide the Department, within 100 days of grant award, an updated evaluation plan and management plan.

Parts of a Complete Application Part A  ED Abstract Narrative Form  Project Narrative Form Responses to the Selection Criteria  Budget Narrative Form ED form 524 C Eligible applicants must also provide a detailed budget narrative that describes their proposed multi-year project activities and the costs associated with those activities as well as all costs associated with carrying out the project.  Other Attachments Form Upload appendices here Part B ED Standard Forms  Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424)  Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424  Department of Education Budget Summary Form (ED 524) Sections A & B  Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL) Assurances/Certifications  GEPA Section 427  Assurances – Non- Construction Programs (SF 424B)  Grants.gov Lobby Form (formerly ED 80-0013 form) ED Program Forms  Eligibility Checklist for LEA Applicants  Eligibility Checklist for Partnership Applicants  i3 Applicant Information Sheet (http://www2.ed.gov/program s/innovation/applicant.html)http://www2.ed.gov/program s/innovation/applicant.html

Completing the Applicant Information Sheet Applicants must download this form, which provides information that is crucial for the peer review process, from the i3 website and submit it with their application. In previous years, applicants have failed to submit this form or have submitted it in an unusable format, which impedes peer review. To complete this form: 1.Download it from the i3 website: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/applicant.html http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/applicant.html 2.Complete the form in Adobe Acrobat 3.Save the form in Adobe Acrobat as a PDF 4.Upload the PDF to the Other Attachments Form of the application DO NOT: Print the form, complete it, and scan it as a PDF; Save the form in any format other than PDF; Forget to include this form; Merge it with other appendices.

Registering for Grants.gov Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov site (www.Grants.gov).www.Grants.gov In order to apply for an i3 grant, you must complete the Grants.gov registration process. Go to the “Get Registered” link on the left hand side of the Grants.gov homepage. There will be a tutorial on this page that instructs applicants on how to complete the registration process. The registration process can take between three to five business days (or as long as four weeks if all steps are not completed in a timely manner). Ensure that your organization is registered and/or up-to-date in the System for Award Management (SAM). If your organization is not registered within SAM, an authorizing official of your organization must register. This registration may take up to two weeks. Please register early!

Applying Through Grants.gov To apply for an i3 grant, go to the “Apply for Grants” link on the left hand side of the Grants.gov homepage. Next, follow the step-by-step application instructions. The CFDA number you will enter for Step 1 is 84.411. If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1- 800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and keep a record of it. You can also contact them via email at support@grants.gov. support@grants.gov

Other Important Resources Investing in Innovation Fund Website: (http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html)http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html Notice Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria Notice Inviting Applications Application Package (includes the Notice Inviting Applications) i3 Applicant Information Sheet Frequently Asked Questions Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please refer to the official Notice in the Federal Register. All questions about i3 should be sent to i3@ed.govi3@ed.gov

Investing in Innovation (i3) Application Webinar Scale-up Grants Competition Overview May 2013 Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Investing in Innovation (i3) Application Webinar Scale-up Grants Competition Overview May 2013 Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Investing in Innovation (i3) Application Webinar Scale-up Grants Competition Overview May 2013 Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Investing in Innovation (i3) Application Webinar Scale-up Grants Competition Overview May 2013 Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback